by Jim Beers
From
The Idaho Statesman -
Article published Nov 18, 2005
Despite new rules, F&G won't kill wolves anytime soon
Agency lacks solid evidence linking animals to dead elk
JEROME - Idaho Department of Fish and Game is not likely to begin killing
wolves anytime soon under new endangered species act rules, staff biologists
and director Steve Huffaker told commissioners at their regular meeting
Thursday.
Commissioners and Huffaker said the public and the Idaho Legislature might
have "unrealistic expectations" about what the department can do
under the
federal 10J rule.Section 11 (h) of the ESA and Title 7 of the U.S. Code both
have provisions for defense of agriculture and game herds from predators..
F&G director Steve Huffaker pointed out that for 15 years, Minnesota's
fish
and game agency has tried unsuccessfully to make a case that wolves are
hurting its white-tailed deer herds.
"They haven't been able to demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships
between deer and wolves," Huffaker said. "Establishing
cause-and-effect
relationships in a complicated ecosystem is a very difficult thing to
do."
"We're not going to make a political decision, we're going to make a
good,
science-based decision," he said. "I don't want anyone to think
we're not
going to be objective, but I'm not naive enough to think there won't be
different interpretations."
_____________________________________________________________
And thus do the good people of Idaho join the untold millions that believed
the government carnival barkers outside the Endangered Species tent only to
go in and be shuffled past a jiggling mannequin and out the back of the
tent. The old lawyer joke says it best. "How can you tell
when a
bureaucrat is lying? His lips are moving."
It has been vastly amusing to this old bureaucrat over the past decade as
lie after lie were told by government bureaucrats and their
environmental/animal rights radical 'partners' about wolves. Things no
one
would believe about free-ranging Pit Bulls or Rottweillers or Dobermans, or
even Labrador Retrievers are accepted with smiles about those
"wonderful"
wild wolves weighing 175 lbs. or more. "They only kill what they
eat."
"They only kill the old and sickly." "Livestock losses
will be compensated
by the Defenders of Wildlife." "Everything BUT wolves is
responsible for
the decline in elk and other big game where wolves are ascendant."
"Wolves
NEVER attack people." "Wolves always." "Wolves
never." "Wolves are
endangered." "Wolves are bringing back willows near streams by
controlling
browsing animals like elk." "Wolves are GOOD for the
environment." The
government agencies and radical groups that introduced the wolves are
"not
responsible" when those wolves kill stock or pets or game animals or even
children. And the biggest lie of all, "don't worry, when the wolves are
'recovered' management will be turned over to the states with 'approved
plans'." Gag me with a spoon!
An "approved plan" was, is, and will always be a leash on the state
government that the Federal bureaucrats, their radical 'partners', and/or a
(think Ninth Circuit) judge can yank them off their feet with at any time.
Like a young dog being trained to "come" or "heel", a
swift and firm yank on
the line does wonders for future behavior. No matter how natural the
dog's
future behavior appears, never forget it is the will of the master imposed
effectively on the lesser being.
The silly nonsense in the above article about how the state must
"demonstrate cause-and-effect relationships between wolves and (fill in
the
blank)" must have been written by a lawyer dressed up like a biologist
(radicals are good at that). First, the Federal bureaucrat will say your
"data" is inconclusive. Then the bureaucrat will shake his
head and say
that "NEPA requirements" must be met.
---NOTE: On the same day as the above wolf article appeared, the following
appeared:
Bush admin advises task force to go easy on NEPA
Tasha Eichenseher, E&E Daily reporter
The House task force evaluating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
should avoid recommending sweeping changes to the law, according to James
Connaughton, chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ).---
_________________________________________________________________
If you still persist, the radicals will publish and whine that you will
"kill all the wolves in (fill in the blank)". They will get
lots of
contributions from their urban precincts and their lawyers will
"threaten" a
lawsuit and the Federal bureaucrats will assure them (as if it wasn't all a
set-up and they had just "done lunch together last week) that they will
"get
more data" and rewrite the regulations. And if you still persist
you will
need to hire your own lawyer and you will turn to your state politicians and
bureaucrats.
Your state bureaucrats will tell you there is nothing they can do. The
"approved plan" requires Federal concurrence and besides they get a
big
chunk of their operating funds from the same Federal agency and they are on
the verge of getting lots more Federal funding through the same Federal
agency. The state politicians will chirp in that the state fish and
wildlife agency (and nearly all other state agencies) are VERY dependent on
Federal funding and besides the state Fish and Wildlife Commission (or
Board) recommends against jeopardizing Federal excise taxes for hunting and
fishing by antagonizing the US Fish and Wildlife Service. After a couple of
phone calls or meetings with your state fish and wildlife employees you will
note the shock collar they wear around their neck. It is really
controlled
by their nearest US Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Office although they
tell the Governor that the state legislature controls it and they tell the
state legislature that the Governor controls it.
Then there is your "data". Obtaining it from state fish and
wildlife
employees will not survive "peer review" by "scientists"
that are both
members of radical organizations and in the government pay . University
professors who are "fair" and not tithing to the Fund for Animals or
already
on the government grant cycle are not only hard to find, they are even
harder to get to help you because it will antagonize all their radical
colleagues and the University administrators whose nose for political
correctness exceeds that of a southern jail bloodhound.
If you still persist, a lawsuit to a "favorable" judge can always be
counted
on to get a "stay" or an "order" that shoots you out of
the saddle. If you
still have any money left (unlikely by now) you appeal and then
"they" (the
radicals and their "secret partners" in 'your' bureaucracy) appeal
and by
then the elk are gone, your kids are all couch potatoes in your apartment
and your idea of recreation is watching cricket matches from Bombay on your
big screen TV.
How do I know this? Easy. Let's just note 2 examples. The
first one from
35 years ago when all this environmental/animal rights socialism was taking
off and the other from the pages of our current newspapers.
In 1972 the Marine Mammal Protection Act "preempted" (that means
dissolved)
all state authority and jurisdiction over any marine mammals. This was
considered "revolutionary" at the time, believe it or not. ALL
the new
Federal authority over marine mammals was clearly directed toward
ELIMINATING all management and use of ALL marine mammals. While this was
certainly the case, the sponsors and supporters vehemently denied it.
They
pointed to the sections of the new law that said when marine mammal species
attain "Optimum Sustainable Populations" (that is "OSP" to
those of us "in
the know") seals and whales and porpoises and sea lions and sea otters
and
polar bears et al could be managed and used (hunted, made into products,
etc.) and controlled (seals depress commercial rock lobsters off Africa and
salmon along the west coast and cod in the North Atlantic, sea otters have
decimated abalone fisheries, killer whales are decimating sea otters in the
Aleutians, whales seriously depress commercial fisheries worldwide, to name
but a few problems today). Yes, yes, when "OSP" is attained,
management
would be returned to states, management plans would be drawn up, commercial
and recreational uses would begin, controls would be implemented etc., etc.
Well here we are almost four decades later and the number of marine mammal
species being managed, hunted, controlled, or used is zero. It is still
all
but impossible to even bring home a polar bear hide legally taken in Canada
or Russia. "OSP", like the "cause and effect
relationships between deer and
wolves" is NOT reducible to "sound science" or
"peer-reviewed data". They
are OPINIONS and therefore not amenable to a court decision or a government
regulation. They are political chicanery unfettered by a Constitution or
any other restraint. They are the battleground between hunters,
trappers,
ranchers, loggers, pet owners, and rural residents faced with an army of
radicals, extremists, and socialists bent on vacating and then controlling
rural America. The winners are the ones with the most money and, in so
many
of these cases, the most urban do-gooders in need of a feel-good cause that
does not affect their style of living. Which brings us to woodpeckers.
Two years ago the Federal bureaucrats and their University and other radical
partners embarked on a "secret" conservation gambit. The got
millions from
Congress, bought and eased thousands of Arkansas acres, and began a public
program to control 5.5 MILLION acres of southern forests to "save"
the
Ivory-billed Woodpecker. This bird had been extinct for 60+ years but
based
on a grainy 4-second video shot of a distant non-descript bird and the
"confirmed sightings" of enthusiasts, the program was a success.
More money
(to agencies and radical outfits); more lands under their control; more
control of a heretofore (compared to the West) uncontrolled part of the
nation; and tons of warm-fuzzy publicity for posturing politicians, boastful
bureaucrats, and revolutionary radicals were all generated.
Only thing is: there aren't and weren't any Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (just
like there weren't lynx leaving hair on government scent posts a couple of
years ago either). This small fact goes unmentioned as the Discovery
Channel and others tout the whole sordid affair and the "perps" (the
correct
term) all go on to fame and fortune. To prove my point, the following
article came out on the same day as the wolf article quoted above:
Congress Helps Self to $3,100 Pay Raise
By DAVID ESPO
The Associated Press
Friday, November 18, 2005; 11:44 PM
"WASHINGTON -- The Republican-controlled Congress helped itself to a
$3,100
pay raise on Friday, then postponed work on bills to curb spending on social
programs and cut taxes in favor of a two-week vacation."
___________________________________________________________________
For those of you unfamiliar with Washington chicanery, the top political
appointees and ALL the top agency bureaucrat's salaries are tied together
with these "Congressional Pay Raises". In other words when our
esteemed
Federal politicians vote themselves a raise, ALL THE TOP BUREAUCRATS get a
comparable raise to go with their up to $50,000 annual bonuses! Wolves,
woodpeckers, and whales are but a small part of their "successes".
So say slowly after me: "I believe that states will get management
authority
over wolves; I believe when marine mammals reach OSP they will once again be
managed sensibly; and (last but not least) I believe Ivory-billed
Woodpeckers and the tooth fairy exist and need our help". Very
good! Now
your homework is to memorize this and be ready at a moment's notice to say
it immediately if anyone ever suggests that more Federal controls are not
the answer to any environmental issue.
There is probably more disheartening news going unreported on that Black
Friday, 18 November 2005. Too much bad news being reported at one time
tends to bring those being harmed together and that does nothing but cause
trouble for those in charge. Fortunately our news media protects us from
that danger most of the time.
Jim Beers
20 November 2005
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewforum.php?f=91
Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
JimBeers7@earthlink.net